Socialism

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8502
PAGE 6 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Thus they kept the Social Welfare component, but generally reneged on the economic component, i.e. government/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

So you're agreeing with me, Social Welfare is socialist?

Quote:
If you mean Socialist economics, I have to go back again the the classic consensus definition as noted above. Government/cooperative ownership of the means of production. Not regulation, not taxation - ownership.

It's a watering down of Marx's original idea, but I don't see any reason to divorce it completely.

Quote:
So they left Socialist economic principles behind and became Social Democrats, or Democratic Socialists, with a platform that didn't even address economy.

Even so that doesn't deny that Social Welfare is Socialist. What would you call Regulation enacted from a central source? It sure isn't Capitalism.

Quote:
Not really, since the NHS doesn't earn any dollars to use to provide benefits. Instead it's supported by tax revenue from privately-owned industries and the people they employ. Also "socialized" and "Socialist" aren't the same thing.

The Wikipedia Article on Socialised Healthcare says:

Quote:
The term is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture [15].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
The Relevant entry in the 'free dictionary' is:

Quote:
so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialized
Kinda sounds like socialism.

Dictionary.com says:

Quote:
so⋅cial⋅ize
/ˈsoʊʃəˌlaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-lahyz] Show IPA verb, -ized, -iz⋅ing.
Use socialised in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2. to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialised

I did a number of searches on Google to see if anything would pop up suggesting that Socialised and Socialism were distinct, nothing did.

GEEZER

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you're agreeing with me, Social Welfare is socialist?

Not really. To me (and most dictionaries), "Socialist", in economic terms, still applies only to government/communal ownership of the means of production. "Social Welfare" or "Social Democrat", applies to governments that exist in a country with a (predominantly) capitalist economy, which use taxation of the capitalist enterprises and their employees to advance their egalitarian social (not socialist) agenda.

The governments in Europe who call themselves "Socialist" while doing nothing to nationalize the means of production are "Socialist" in pretty much the same way the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is "Democratic" or run by the "People".

Quote:
It's a watering down of Marx's original idea, but I don't see any reason to divorce it completely.

It rejects or ignores the major premise of Marx's central idea - that the government, and eventually the people, would own the means of production. Rather than the people being cared for exclusively based on the fruits of their labour, they are cared for based on taxing the fruits of successful private capitalist businesses and the employees of those businesses.
Quote:

Even so that doesn't deny that Social Welfare is Socialist. What would you call Regulation enacted from a central source? It sure isn't Capitalism.

I agree it's not 'pure' Capitalism, but it still relies on private enterprise, not government owned enterprise, as the means to generate revenue to support the state. The same logic would deny that any government in Europe (or in fact the world) is socialist because there is always some private ownership of the means of production. Consider that even in the Atlee government, no more than 25% of business was nationalized (per the Wiki article you cited), and much less is nationalized now.

Quote:
The term (Socialised Healthcare) is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture [15].

Sorry, but that's politics, not logic.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:06 AM

I know a girl who's favorite "ism" isn't political.

It's not religious either.

Although she is on her knees a lot for it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The governments in Europe who call themselves "Socialist" while doing nothing to nationalize the means of production are "Socialist" in pretty much the same way the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is "Democratic" or run by the "People".

Is there any government in Europe that calls itself socialist??

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not really.

I beg to differ, you said that Social Democracy took Social Welfare from Socialism. The rest of your paragraph rather sounds like back peddling.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
To me (and most dictionaries), "Socialist", in economic terms, still applies only to government/communal ownership of the means of production. "Social Welfare" or "Social Democrat", applies to governments that exist in a country with a (predominantly) capitalist economy, which use taxation of the capitalist enterprises and their employees to advance their egalitarian social (not socialist) agenda.

I've shown quite clearly that Social Democracy is a system coming from Socialism, saying you don't accept that because you want to adhere to a rigid definition that only takes account of Marx's original idea and ignore that things can change and expand over time, doesn't hold much water for me. If we take that and apply it to capitalism, then only systems identical to those described in the Wealth of Nations are Capitalist, that is no nations are Capitalist. If we apply it too Democracy only those nations identical to those described by Plato are Democracies, that is, none are.

Further I've shown that 'Socialised' is a word denoting Socialism put into action, which further lends credence to Socialised Welfare systems being Socialist, doesn't it? I mean you did rather skate around that issue, so I do have to ask.

Even further, you seem to be reaching a point where you have nothing more to argue, so you just wave at the dictionary definition and demand we take that at face value. But I'm sorry you need more than that, Dictionaries define words, but we're trying to define an abstract concept. We're talking about the concept Socialism, not the word Socialism. A dictionary or thesaurus can tell me that Socialised means putting some aspect of Socialism in to action, it can't give me a debate winning concept of what Socialism is.

And one more thing (even even further), you make a big show of 'predominately Capitalist economy', but as I've already pointed out, Socialism is an economic AND social system. I also pointed out that all the definitions you posted, were focusing only on the economic component, and were thus missing half the picture (further leading into my case of imperfect definition above). Even if your argument shows that Social Democracy completely rejects Socialist Economic Principles, and I don't think it does, it doesn't show that it rejects Socialist Social principles. Indeed even YOU admitted that Social Welfare came from Socialism in your previous post.

Quote:
It rejects or ignores the major premise of Marx's central idea - that the government, and eventually the people, would own the means of production.

It modifies it, certainly. Even if that's the case, all Capitalist economies today reject the major premise of Capitalism to one degree or another, that of (completely) free markets. If your argument here rejects that Social Democracy is Socialist, then it also rejects that any of the economies of the world today are Capitalist.

Quote:
Rather than the people being cared for exclusively based on the fruits of their labour, they are cared for based on taxing the fruits of successful private capitalist businesses and the employees of those businesses.

Isn't taxes based on their income a percentage of the fruits of their labour?

Quote:
I agree it's not 'pure' Capitalism, but it still relies on private enterprise, not government owned enterprise, as the means to generate revenue to support the state. The same logic would deny that any government in Europe (or in fact the world) is socialist because there is always some private ownership of the means of production. Consider that even in the Atlee government, no more than 25% of business was nationalized (per the Wiki article you cited), and much less is nationalized now.

It seems a rather unfair stipulation you're making to me. It can be

GEEZER

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I beg to differ, you said that Social Democracy took Social Welfare from Socialism.

Nope. That would only be true if Social Welfare were exclusive to Socialism. However, government created and supported Social Welfare can exist in pretty much any economic or governmental system. Consider Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security in the U.S. Even Nazi Germany had a strong Social Welfare system.

More later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KPO

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:42 PM

Quote:
Is there any government in Europe that calls itself socialist??

Some parties are 'socialist' - this from wiki's socialism page:

"Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as "socialists", introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means."

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Nope.

Your statement was exceedingly clear Geezer.

Quote:
"With its ascendancy, social democracy changed gradually, most notably in West Germany. These changes generally reflected a moderation of the 19th-century socialist doctrine of wholesale nationalization of business and industry."

Thus they kept the Social Welfare component, but generally reneged on the economic component, i.e. government/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

:Thus they kept the Social Welfare component [from 19th century socialism], but generally reneged on the economic component [of 19th Century socialism], i.e. government/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
That would only be true if Social Welfare were exclusive to Socialism. However, government created and supported Social Welfare can exist in pretty much any economic or governmental system. Consider Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security in the U.S. Even Nazi Germany had a strong Social Welfare system.

And you have to show those weren't taken from socialism. Because I'm fairly sure your examples did come from socialism, the Nazi's took a smorgasbord of things from the other political parties operating in Germany. Since one of their major competitors were the Socialists/Communists, and since Germany was rather impoverished borrowing the Socialist social welfare systems would be a way to garner popular support.

Medicare/Medicaid seem to be the product of Social Democratic thinking within the United States, such as it is. I can consider all those things, it doesn't mean that Social Welfare isn't Socialist, just because it's not enacted by a Socialist government.

Again, you go back to your unfair criteria. If it's not being enacted in a 100% Socialist Government, it can't be from socialism, yet if it's capitalism even if it's not pure Capitalism, we can call it Capitalist.

Hell you've even co-opted Private enterprise as Capitalist, despite private enterprise existing in other systems, and prior to the existence of Capitalism.

Again, I'm not saying that Social Welfare suddenly makes a nation 100% socialist, I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism. For that to be the case, it doesn't matter what the overall society or economy is. I never said only Socialist governments can enact Social Welfare programs, neither did I say something can't be Socialist or come from Socialism if it's not enacted by a 100% socialist government. That's your stipulation, and not only is it completely wrong, it's also being unevenly applied, since you're perfectly happy for something to be capitalist even if it's not enacted in a 100% capitalist economy.

KPO

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:20 AM

Quote:
Your argument, using your example, is like saying the ten commandments aren't Christian, because other things have commandments.

No, hang on. The ten commandments are specific to christianity, whereas it hasn't been established yet by you or anyone that social welfare is specific to socialism, or originated as a specifically socialist idea. So my argument is like saying you cannot define commandments as 'christian', because other religions also have them. Because you're defining social welfare as socialist aren't you?

Quote:
Um no, the modern welfare state comes from the Social Democracy movement, which is socialism that rejected certain ideas of Marx

From an article on the history of pensions:

"The idea of a universal old-age pension was initially touted in the French Revolution and Germany was the first country to introduce such a system almost 100 years later."

http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=847124

Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.

But anyway, here I've shown you an idea for social welfare dating back to the French Revolution in 1789 - predating social democracy, predating marx and predating socialism.

Heads should roll

AGENTROUKA

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Is there any government in Europe that calls itself socialist??

Some parties are 'socialist' - this from wiki's socialism page:

"Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as "socialists", introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means."

Does it say which countries?

I'd say they're definitely misapplying the term, then.

ETA: I looked at the page and they don't elaborate at all. Kind of a weird thing to throw in there without any detail.

If it's true (and I'm not saying it isn't!) I suspect they may be trying to distance themselves from more centrist social democratic parties by adopting such a name, taking it more for show than for actual political intent.

ETA2: Apparently France has a Parti Socialiste. They seem to have grown out of a genuinely socialist party that abandoned its full socialist aims for good in 1982 and - I would guess - retained the name for the sake of tradition.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE